View Full Version : just tried fsx ......bah
Just tried FSX .......
Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff bahhh :nono:
back to 2004
give it some time, and try the tweaks. I know it comes across pretty horrible, but if you set it just right, it'll work. Really, trust me man. My impression was the same for a couple of weeks, till I came to like it. If you tweak it just right, you'll realize how nice it is to fly in it, with the beautiful scenery, etc. If you haven't realized, the weather is VERY NICELY done. By that, I mean winds, thermals, updrafts, turbulences, and other realistic stuff that you couldn't find or even think of, in a flight sim has been modeled. I know it had downsides, but I know you'll come to like it.
Also, dont forget to try out the glider mission. Once you learn how to fly those things, its a real experience going out and flyin your own gilder in FS's beautiful world, noise free, and chill :wink2:
A thread in here has a bunch of nice tweaks you might want to consider.
I hope you come to like this game, as I think it has a lot of potential - even though its a bit ahead of its time...
Funky
Towerboss
11-26-2006, 09:28
one question does FS X have heat blurr for the jets?
TB
give it some time, and try the tweaks. I know it comes across pretty horrible, but if you set it just right, it'll work. Really, trust me man. My impression was the same for a couple of weeks, till I came to like it. If you tweak it just right, you'll realize how nice it is to fly in it, with the beautiful scenery, etc. If you haven't realized, the weather is VERY NICELY done. By that, I mean winds, thermals, updrafts, turbulences, and other realistic stuff that you couldn't find or even think of, in a flight sim has been modeled. I know it had downsides, but I know you'll come to like it.
Also, dont forget to try out the glider mission. Once you learn how to fly those things, its a real experience going out and flyin your own gilder in FS's beautiful world, noise free, and chill :wink2:
A thread in here has a bunch of nice tweaks you might want to consider.
I hope you come to like this game, as I think it has a lot of potential - even though its a bit ahead of its time...
Funky
maybe true and i tried tweak, BUT if even I cant run it smooth (Monster setup here with 64bit chip on 4Ghz 1140mhz FSB and corsair 8000UL on 760mhz) then ....
Just made one Test....i took off from our base here:
FSX stuttering on all setting - GFX nice
FS9 120FPS on Max and more - GFX also nice
Result ... as a good running Trainings-Tool and not as Eye-catch ...definitly FS9
Good to know those before in advance, -AS- ... don't know precisely why, but I've suspected that FS 2004 was better than the new release.
Jackal out.
one question does FS X have heat blurr for the jets?
TB
Negative :nono:
Funky
Towerboss
11-26-2006, 15:36
Then MS can not count on my support. I'll stick with 2004.
TB
all-fired-up
11-27-2006, 01:34
Just tried FSX .......
Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff bahhh :nono:
back to 2004
Just got done with some Intermediate missions in FSX. FSX Rocks!! :thumb:
Framerates are just fine! I love the glass panel Cessna and Baron.
Bogusheadbox
11-27-2006, 09:34
Just got done with some Intermediate missions in FSX. FSX Rocks!! :thumb:
Framerates are just fine! I love the glass panel Cessna and Baron.
I also get acceptable frame rates. However, i have noticed a possible problem.
If i fly out of heathrow international, i can get usable framerates. But after a 2 hour fly in to heathrow, i can be loking at a slide show.
Possibly a memory leak issue the size of niagra ?
You mention the glass cockpit planes. I agree also that the idea of putting them in is excellent. But the garmin is a hollow shell. It lacks many features.
One main feature the garmin lacks is the ability to log a flight plan. You CANNOT enter a flight plan into the garmin. The only way to do this is to enter in a flight plan using MSFSX route planner before entering game which puts that into the garmin for you.
This means you cannot devaite your flight plan in game. You cannot enter in multiple flight plans etc, etc.
Sure you can do a Direct to "x" path on the Garmin. But that is the same feature as the handheld GPS?
So whats the point ~?:confused:
all-fired-up
11-27-2006, 11:51
You mention the glass cockpit planes. I agree also that the idea of putting them in is excellent. But the garmin is a hollow shell. It lacks many features.
One main feature the garmin lacks is the ability to log a flight plan. You CANNOT enter a flight plan into the garmin. The only way to do this is to enter in a flight plan using MSFSX route planner before entering game which puts that into the garmin for you.
This means you cannot devaite your flight plan in game. You cannot enter in multiple flight plans etc, etc.
All the more for the hard-core-simmers to change. Just keep an eye out at flightsim.com and avsim.com, you'll start seeing that many people, when they don't like it, they change it. If MSFS had everything perfect and that no one could disagree with, the sim would be over $100, and that would exclude so much market potential - again...that's why they've offered the SDK's in the Delux version.
Cheer up, it's not the end of the world...yet :wink2:
FSX running on a P4 3.GHz, 2 GBRAM, GeForce FX5900FPS And running extremely good here, FPS constantly in the 20's.
Medium high settings.
FS has never been able to charm me untill where the online community was full steam ahead with quality mods etc..
I'll probably get it somewhere summer next year or so.
Dirk
FSX running, on PentiumD 3.4ghz, 2gig RAMddrII, geforce 7900GT 265MB ... Also running good here ... FPS between 15 en 20 ... settings high, traffic low.
I like it for a default MSFS.
Ok with few Tweaks it runs quiete good
http://ops.precisionmanuals.com/wiki/FSX_FPS_Guide
But i also found a micosoft recommendation for full settings
3.4 Ghz
2-4 GB RAM ( definitly more then 1GB )
GFX card with 512MB or even better a SLI setup
If this goes for FO also to get the full pleasure it will be expensive again :red:
Here the tweak link, cessna jumps and a ride through Grand Canyon
http://ops.precisionmanuals.com/wiki/FSX_FPS_Guide
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/6743/2006112921616109kopiebg8.th.jpg (http://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2006112921616109kopiebg8.jpg)http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/6351/2006112921722109kopieoa0.th.jpg (http://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2006112921722109kopieoa0.jpg)http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/5707/2006112921839812kopieml4.th.jpg (http://img92.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2006112921839812kopieml4.jpg)
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/707/asdu3.jpg
Maybe it's just me but I don't want to buy a sim that I can run full maxed out right out of the box. I'd rather it run and medium settings well to allow for expansion so it is future proofed a little.
I am hoping the same for FO.:bigsmile:
Maybe it's just me but I don't want to buy a sim that I can run full maxed out right out of the box. I'd rather it run and medium settings well to allow for expansion so it is future proofed a little.
I am hoping the same for FO.:bigsmile:
I'm curious; how would you feel about those same graphics after seeing them the same way, 2 years later? Even after you've upgraded your system.
Microsoft basically gave u something that they will expect you to have fun with, for the next 2-3 years. yea they could have made it even faster if they took advantage of multi-core, and other things. However, the point is, it seems like they didn't even intend to make something that runs smooth today.
To me, its like getting a job with a flat hourly pay, or a performance based (commission based + little hourly) job. Unless I would just want to chill, or in other words be stuck in the same place, I would take the performance based job any-day. Why? because even though the hourly pay is little, and the work is a bit harder, you always have room to advance and make MORE money. But its all up to you to get there. Its the same here;if they gave you something that came right out of the box and worked perfectly maxed out, you would have no room for advancement. Considering that they will probably not come out with an FS within the next 2-3 years, I think I would prefer the room for advancement, instead of being stuck with 2 years ago's standards.
Thats just my 2 cents,
Funky
Yeap finally i agree and add a beauty
~145MB with 50page pdf Manual and really not bad
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9772/2006112971240375ow5.th.jpg (http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2006112971240375ow5.jpg) http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/3324/2006112972756937tc5.th.jpg (http://img169.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2006112972756937tc5.jpg) http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7074/2006112973018890ox3.th.jpg (http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2006112973018890ox3.jpg) http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/1560/2006112973928687xu8.th.jpg (http://img169.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2006112973928687xu8.jpg)
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8608/200611297441115xj9.th.jpg (http://img169.imageshack.us/my.php?image=200611297441115xj9.jpg) http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/3537/2006112974831781th9.th.jpg (http://img154.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2006112974831781th9.jpg) http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/9255/2006112974542609sp9.th.jpg (http://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2006112974542609sp9.jpg)
and where can we get this beauty ??? :d
http://www.justflight.com/newsDetail.asp?newsID=270
Considering that they will probably not come out with an FS within the next 2-3 years, I think I would prefer the room for advancement, instead of being stuck with 2 years ago's standards.
Thats just my 2 cents,
Funky
I hear what your saying but I have to disagee with your quality assesment.
Without addons my FS9 maxed out looks like FSX at medium settings and in some respects better.
So once I can afford an upgrade and once the addons for FSX come on line I think my overall experience will be greatly improved compared to my FS9 completely maxed out with addons.
I tend to look at any FS release to be a base which third party developers can build on. That said the new additions in FSX I think will facilitate some many new impressive addons.
Don't get me wrong I don't think FSX is perfect by any means and I still fly FS9 mostly but that is because I'm in wait mode for some more third party addons.
:smile:
I think alot of people are doing that now... I have FSX from the first day it was released here in Belgium... Ok I have flown some mission, but MSFS is not complete without addons!
I just love the idea of rebuilding the world :lol:
Bogusheadbox
11-30-2006, 09:46
Okay I am a little muddled and for anyone that has had the (dis?)pleasure of reading some of my posts. My questions can be a little sideward. Soooo i am going to use a game like PF as an example.
Pacific fighters when released had everyones computers barely able to play highest settings upon release. Many years down the track computers became more powerful. Now a Good computer can run FB merged on highest settings (stock) no problem.
But then we had Water = 3
Then we had people = 1
Not to mention effects =2 (is there a 3)
Now we have water =4.
PF is an old game that is tried and tested and works brilliantly. They have updated the game throughout the years so those with monster rigs, can have monster graphics. Those with ok rigs will have good graphocs and performance.
So........ My question is.
Why can't Microsoft do the same. Why couldn't they take FS2004 which has been improved on immesuarbly since its launch and improve on it so that todays and tomorrows computers will be able to access more and more.
Unless i am mistaken, FSX is the same as 2004 but with purtier trees improved ground and sky textures and the ability to draw more items to fill scenery.
So why did they make a new product that runs crap on todays top end machine and hasn't got support for tomorrows machine ?
Patch anyone ?
Bogusheadbox,
IMHO MSFS10 is vastly improved from MSFS9, FS10 includes:
More high-detailed cities and airports.
Structured Missions
Enhanced Mutiplayer, with completly new coding
More default aircraft
Newer systems, (such as the G1000).
I could go into detail, for example airports have animated gates, refuel trucks, bagage trucks, pushback, and airport traffic.
Once people get ahold of Windows Vista, and Direct X 10, MSFS10 should run perfectly fine on modern day systems, however Microsoft obviously wanted to get the Flight Simulator software out before the holidays, and as early as possible, not to mention being loyal about a release date. If people aren't willing to wait for Vista, and Direct X 10, by all means stay with the, what is it now, four year old version?. But for those, like me, who get about 18 - 19 FPS in cities on MSFS10, and are willing to wait for the latest Windows OS/DX version, just sit back and stop the complaining already!
Bogusheadbox
11-30-2006, 13:43
Not being an owner of fs 2004 - i can't guage. So they did do a lot of work.
Good to know !!!
Bogusheadbox,
IMHO MSFS10 is vastly improved from MSFS9, FS10 includes:
More high-detailed cities and airports.
Structured Missions
Enhanced Mutiplayer, with completly new coding
More default aircraft
Newer systems, (such as the G1000).
I could go into detail, for example airports have animated gates, refuel trucks, bagage trucks, pushback, and airport traffic.
Once people get ahold of Windows Vista, and Direct X 10, MSFS10 should run perfectly fine on modern day systems, however Microsoft obviously wanted to get the Flight Simulator software out before the holidays, and as early as possible, not to mention being loyal about a release date. If people aren't willing to wait for Vista, and Direct X 10, by all means stay with the, what is it now, four year old version?. But for those, like me, who get about 18 - 19 FPS in cities on MSFS10, and are willing to wait for the latest Windows OS/DX version, just sit back and stop the complaining already!
Agreed. FSX was coded with Vista in mind. Thus, a new sim was an obvious choice. Besides that many improvements have been made, imo.
#1 Graphics(didn't really surprise you i guess): As long as i keep generic scenery on low, the other details work fine on medium - high. dusk and dawn light effects are simply beautiful.
#2 flightmodel: Well, I'd say it has improved. Sharp reversals never felt that good in MSFS
#3 flourbombs: Would this be a starting point for weapon implementation?
#4 ATC: Hm. Ok they framed us.
#5 Mission system is pure fun.
#6 FSUIPC afaik the communication between FS and thrid party tools is now based on TCP/IP. Advantage: wide spread protocol. This will make the intergration of custom addons much easier
Now that i got my Trackir working with FSX, i really enjoy it. You can bend over the panel to see the runway when flaring or lean back to look past your wings when turning on crosswind....
Bogusheadbox,
IMHO MSFS10 is vastly improved from MSFS9, FS10 includes:
More high-detailed cities and airports.
Structured Missions
Enhanced Mutiplayer, with completly new coding
More default aircraft
Newer systems, (such as the G1000).
I could go into detail, for example airports have animated gates, refuel trucks, bagage trucks, pushback, and airport traffic.
Once people get ahold of Windows Vista, and Direct X 10, MSFS10 should run perfectly fine on modern day systems, however Microsoft obviously wanted to get the Flight Simulator software out before the holidays, and as early as possible, not to mention being loyal about a release date. If people aren't willing to wait for Vista, and Direct X 10, by all means stay with the, what is it now, four year old version?. But for those, like me, who get about 18 - 19 FPS in cities on MSFS10, and are willing to wait for the latest Windows OS/DX version, just sit back and stop the complaining already!
+1 Bogusheadbox
However, please note that if you really want a better ides, there is a major discussion with the ACES Team putting in over at AVSIM. of particular note is advice from a guy caled Phil Taylor (who I assume is rather big in ACES) and hes says not to think of the DX10 and patch for early next year as a 'golden bullet' (or was a 'silver bullet' - can't remember).
I myself am hoping that it at least brings it up over FS2004 performance.
Hell Sqn Protos
12-06-2006, 20:36
S~!
Intersting thread and informative. Have joined the FSX fray, early impressions are ok, not magnificent. Hopefully with some tuning can get it where it should be.
Yes I remember when I first got fs2004, It ran fine on my rig but as time passed and my cockpit started to come together, thrustmaster cougar and the upgrades ie UBER NXT AND HALL Sensors, simped peddals, and hagstrom interface card to handle switches, etc then off to get Mega Scenery and then Mega City and fly Tampa airports and then world Scenery, you get the picture, then things weren't as fast as they once were. FSX will probably run fine with our new updated Computors, but before long there will be so much new software to make flying more realistic, and we will buy more stuff to bog down out new systems that we will still find thing to bitch about, I guess it's the natue of the beast, I will be the first one in line to buy anything new that will make my computor run faster or to make the scenery more realistic, winning the lotto would be nice but until then I will try to find way of dealing with what I have for the moment..........
Vampire14
12-07-2006, 15:49
Yep bought FSX as the last MSFS I had was 2002, loaded it up and WTF it runs like crap - performed all the 'tweaks and balances' - still ran like crap..so went out and bought FS9 - have ALL the settings maxed out, with 75m NZ terrain mesh maxed and add-on scenery etc, and runs great at a locked 35 fps everywhere.
Go figure....anyone want a copy of FSX? :bigsmile:
see, I dont understand why everybody's evaluating these simulators by their graphics and their relative FPS... come on, its a SIMULATOR, not an ARCADE GAME. Its a bit more than just the looks when it comes to computing power when you compare the two...
Funky
PS. Vampire14's excluded here, since all HE sees is art work :tongue:.
mainly because while flying VFR, better graphics relates to being able to see visual landmarks and I personally don't like slideshows, better frame rates relates to more fluid flight, thats part of the challenge to me is to get it as close to my type of flying as possible. Having been a pilot many years ago, I look for more realism than most....BTW I am not knocking FSX by any means, as I will be buying it but am holding off for now, when I am ready to upgrade to my next sys....I felt the same way when I went from 2002 to 2004, so its only natural to know what to expect.
zaGURUinzaSKY
12-09-2006, 22:10
FSX is a DX10 software, made for Vista. You can only have the best with that setup. They simply anticipated the release date becouse of Xmas 2006 but just don't install it before vista and dx10. With DX 10 there will be a lot more graphic features and 4 to 6 times more fps.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.